Okay so you accept that the killings at Munbai were the fault of terrorists.

What was that you were saying about it being Britain's fault?

Quote:

But that's not the issue being mooted, and you know it.

No - you know it IS what's being mooted.

If I may say so you need to draw a distinction between events that are factually connected as all history is by definition and the question of culpability for events. Eck used a term in relation to Britain's role - 'responsibility' - that implied culpability for the actions of terrorists in Mumbai and the crimes in Palestine when everyone knows that blame lies with the perpetrators.

To reduce the issue to one of culpability is a wonderful legal dodge. It absolves everyone of historical responsibility, which is a neat trick for those who, as David Bowie once said, "ain't got the power any more." One sees the same dodge in your response elsewhere to the lack of legal culpability in the bombing of Dresden because the law controlling such activity hadn't yet been passed. Wonderful for the Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Corps, isn't it? I've never questioned the responsibility of the individuals involved in the Mumbai massacres. But on the other hand, I don't believe it to be an absolution of responsibility to think through the historical contexts that make such a massacre almost inevitable. I'm not blaming the Moghul or the British Empires for the massacre. I most definitely am saying that without that historical background the massacre would most likely not have been a possibility. Your implication that one can divorce historical context completely from present actions just boggles the historical imagination. From that point of view, the establishment of the Spanish Empire in Latin America has nothing at all to do with the succession of caudillos that ruled almost all Latin America from the liberations of the 19th century all the way to the present in many places. I wish I could be so cheerfully contemptuous of the influence of history and culture.

edit: I need to add that it's fascinating that the legalism of your response to the bombing of Dresden presupposes that positive law trumps moral behavior, whereas your position in regards to gay marriage presupposes that positive law cannot trump conventional notions of morality. Just lovely.

To reduce the issue to one of culpability is a wonderful legal dodge. It absolves everyone of historical responsibility, which is a neat trick for those who, as David Bowie once said, "ain't got the power any more."

It's not a dodge but the only thing that counts. If I invite someone over for dinner and they get run over on the way by a bus going too fast it's useless talking about my part in their death. One needs to focus on what the bus driver was doing. If all you care about is my part in the dinner guest's death or the role of the British Empire in the Mumbai massacre you're absolving the true culprits of responsibility.

Quote:

I'm not blaming the Moghul or the British Empires for the massacre. I most definitely am saying that without that historical background the massacre would most likely not have been a possibility.

As with the dead dinner guest responding to my invitation? Eckhard used the expression 'direct and indirect responsibility' of the British Empire which implied blame.

Quote:

One sees the same dodge in your response elsewhere to the lack of legal culpability in the bombing of Dresden because the law controlling such activity hadn't yet been passed. Wonderful for the Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Corps, isn't it?

The implication of your post is that Dresden was immoral even if it wasn't illegal. However, the bombing was intended to assist the Russian military advance at a time when the war was not yet won so there were military objectives. Civilian bombing in populated parts of London and other parts of England had no such mitigation. A nation is legallly and morally entitled to retaliate with overwhelming force if (a) it's not a against the law and (b) considered necessary to avoid a greater evil for example by providing an effective deterrent against further attacks on England and avoid the ultimate triumph of fascism. That was Dresden.

Quote:

I need to add that it's fascinating that the legalism of your response to the bombing of Dresden presupposes that positive law trumps moral behavior

No, because I don't accept that hindsight is a sound foundation for moral judgments. Remove hindsight and the morality of Dresden is not in doubt.

The morality of Dresden was in doubt at the time of the decision to do the bombing. It was in doubt after the fact. It continues to be in doubt. The argument that any nation is entitled to overwhelming force in responding to prevent further attacks makes the attack on al Qaeda bases in Pakistan ok, then. Ah, no, of course not: it's not Pakistan that's doing the attacking, so there's no right to hit Pakistani territory. I take it that would be your argument. But then there is no response that can be made to non-governmental attacks, is there? By the way, the analogy to a party invitation is bogus. An invitation does not compel, nor does it alter the terms of engagement, as it were, in the way that imperial conquest and plantation does. If I were to drag the "invited" person behind my truck and force him to attend the party, and in the process the "guest" were to die because a bus ran over him, would I not have at least a smidgeon of responsibility?

The argument that any nation is entitled to overwhelming force in responding to prevent further attacks makes the attack on al Qaeda bases in Pakistan ok, then. Ah, no, of course not: it's not Pakistan that's doing the attacking, so there's no right to hit Pakistani territory. I take it that would be your argument. But then there is no response that can be made to non-governmental attacks, is there?

As a matter of fact there is. The UN Charter requires all security matters to be referred to the Security Council. Art 39 provides that:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It doesn't say "unless a member of the Security Council thinks it's going to lose the argument in which case it can do whatever it likes" like Blair and Dubya thought.

Quote:

By the way, the analogy to a party invitation is bogus. An invitation does not compel, nor does it alter the terms of engagement, as it were, in the way that imperial conquest and plantation does.

Well to be honest your distinction is bogus. Alright then let's say it's not an invitation to dinner but an instruction to attend the works canteen and on the way the worker gets run over by a bus... the rest you know.

Quote:

If I were to drag the "invited" person behind my truck and force him to attend the party, and in the process the "guest" were to die because a bus ran over him, would I not have at least a smidgeon of responsibility?

No, the bus driver has sole responsibility because he killed him. In fact you should be mad at the driver because you really wanted the deceased to attend your party.

Ah yes, of course. And I showed my determination to have the guest attend the party by tying him up and dragging him behind my truck. You know, your perspective is so patently specious that were I the truck driver, I'm certain I wouldn't want you as my defense lawyer.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.